10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

 
 
 
 
 
 

G.R. No. 211072.  November 7, 2016.*

 
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs. DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, PTE. LTD.,
respondent.

Taxation; Tax Refunds; A value-added tax (VAT)-registered

taxpayer claiming for a refund or tax credit of its excess and
unutilized input VAT must file an administrative claim within
two (2) years from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales
are made.—Based on the plain language of the foregoing
provision, a VAT-registered taxpayer claiming for a refund or tax
credit of its excess and unutilized input VAT must file an
administrative claim within two (2) years from the close of the
taxable quarter when the sales are made. After

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

 
 
91

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 91

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

that, the CIR is given 120 days, from the submission of

complete documents in support of said administrative claim,
within which to grant or deny said claim.
Same; Same; The two (2)-year prescriptive period under
Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)
pertains only to the filing of the administrative claim with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); while the judicial claim may be
filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within thirty (30) days
from the receipt of the decision of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR) or expiration of one hundred twenty (120)-day
period of the CIR to act on the claim.—The Court further
explained that the two (2)-year prescriptive period under Section
112(A) of the NIRC pertains only to the filing of the
administrative claim with the BIR; while the judicial claim may
be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the
decision of the CIR or expiration of 120-day period of the CIR to
act on the claim.
Same; Same; The one hundred twenty (120)-day period is
permissible from December 10, 2003, when Bureau of Internal
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

Revenue (BIR) Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued, until October 6,

2010, when Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging
Company of Asia, Inc., 632 SCRA 422, was promulgated; but
before and after said period, the observance of the 120-day period
is mandatory and jurisdictional.—All told, the Court maintains
that the 120-day period is permissible from December 10, 2003,
when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued, until October 6,
2010, when Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging
Company of Asia, Inc., 632 SCRA 422 was promulgated; but
before and after said period, the observance of the 120-day period
is mandatory and jurisdictional.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the amended decision

and resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   The Solicitor General for petitioner.
   Salvador & Associates for respondent.

 
CAGUIOA,  J.:
 
Before the Court is a Petition for Review1 on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner
Commissioner of Internal Reve-

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 10-27.

 
 

92

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

nue (CIR), assailing the Amended Decision2 dated July 29,

2013 and Resolution3 dated January 7, 2014 of the Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in C.T.A. E.B. No. 815. The
CTA En Banc reversed and set aside its earlier decision
dated January 31, 2013, which affirmed the CTA First
Division’s dismissal of the claim for refund or issuance of
tax credit filed by respondent Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd. (DKS) in CTA Case No. 7940 on the
ground of prematurity, and remanded the case to the court
of origin for further proceedings.
 
Facts
 
DKS is the Philippine branch of a multinational
company organized and existing under and by the virtue of
the laws of Singapore. It is licensed to do business as a
regional operating headquarters in the Philippines.
On July 25, 2007, DKS filed its original Quarterly
Value-Added Tax (VAT) Return for the 2nd quarter of CY
2007 with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
On June 18, 2009, DKS filed with the BIR-Revenue
District Office No. 47 an Application for Tax
Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914) of its excess and
unutilized input VAT for the 2nd quarter of CY 2007 in the
amount of P8,767,719.30. Subsequently, on June 30, 2009,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

or even before any action by the CIR on its administrative

claim, DKS filed a Petition for Review with the CTA,
docketed as CTA Case No. 7940.

_______________

2   Id., at pp. 34-44. Penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-

Manalastas, with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate
Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-
Victorino and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, concurring; Associate Justice
Caesar A. Casanova, dissenting; and Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista
and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, on leave.
3   Id., at pp. 47-53. Penned by Associate Justice Amelia R. Cotangco-
Manalastas, with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate
Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy,
Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-
Grulla, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, concurring.

 
 

93

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 93

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

Trial commenced and DKS filed its Formal Offer of

Evidence on September 22, 2010, which was admitted by
the CTA First Division in a Resolution dated December 1,
2010.
Meanwhile, on October 6, 2010, while DKS’s claim for
refund or tax credit was pending before the CTA First
Division, this Court promulgated Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.4 (Aichi). In
that case, the Court held that compliance with the 120-day
period granted to the CIR, within which to act on an
administrative claim for refund or credit of unutilized input
VAT, as provided under Section 112(C) of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, is
mandatory and jurisdictional in filing an appeal with the
CTA.
On February 21, 2011, the CIR filed a Motion to
Dismiss,5 stating that the CTA First Division lacked
jurisdiction because respondent’s Petition for Review was
prematurely filed.
In a Resolution dated April 26, 2011,6 the CTA First
Division dismissed respondent’s judicial claim, the decretal
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss

dated February 21, 2011, filed by respondent [CIR], is hereby
GRANTED. Consequently, the Petition for Review dated June 30,
2009, filed by petitioner Deutsche Knowledge Services, Pte. Ltd. is
hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.7

 
The CTA First Division ruled that the petition for
review filed by DKS on June 30, 2009, or barely twelve (12)
days after the filing of its administrative claim for refund,
was clearly premature justifying its dismissal. The CTA

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

First Division explained that pursuant to Section 112(C) of

the NIRC and the jurisprudence laid down in Aichi, it is a

_______________

4  646 Phil. 710; 632 SCRA 422 (2010).

5  Rollo, pp. 54-60.
6  Id., at pp. 62-74. Penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-
Victorino, with Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, concurring and Presiding
Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, on leave.
7  Id., at p. 74.

 
 

94

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

mandatory requirement to wait for the lapse of the 120-day

period granted to petitioner to act on the application for
refund or issuance of tax credit, before a judicial claim may
be filed with the CTA.
DKS moved for reconsideration, but the same was
denied by the CTA First Division in its Resolution8 dated
August 2, 2011.
Aggrieved, DKS elevated the matter to the CTA En
Banc, raising the following arguments: (1) the CTA First
Division validly acquired jurisdiction of its judicial claim
for refund; (2) Aichi should not be applied indiscriminately
to all claims for VAT refund; (3) the prospective application
of the Aichi interpretation on the observance of the 120-day
rule is legally and equitably imperative; and (4) DKS is
entitled to a refund of its claimed input VAT for the 2nd
quarter of CY 2007.
On January 31, 2013, the CTA En Banc rendered a
Decision9 affirming the April 26, 2011 and August 2, 2011
Resolutions of the CTA First Division. It agreed with the
CTA First Division in applying the ruling in Aichi which
warranted the dismissal of DKS’s judicial claim for refund
on the ground of prematurity.
In the meantime, on February 12, 2013, this Court
decided the consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining
Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and
Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue10 (San Roque), wherein the Court recognized BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 as an exception to the 120-day
period.
Invoking this Court’s pronouncements in San Roque,
DKS moved for reconsideration. The CTA En Banc found
merit in said motion and rendered the assailed Amended
Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for

Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated January 31, 2013) is hereby
GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, 2013, which
affirmed the CTA First Division’s dismissal of the Petition for
Review dock-

_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

8   Id., at pp. 77-99.

9   Id., at pp. 102-113.
10  703 Phil. 310; 690 SCRA 336 (2013).

 
 

95

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 95

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

eted as CTA Case No. 7940 on the ground of prematurity, is

hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, CTA Case No. 7940 is hereby REMANDED to the
court of origin for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.11

 
The CIR filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the
motion was denied for lack of merit by the CTA En Banc in
its Resolution12 dated January 7, 2014.
Hence, this petition.
 
Issue
 
The singular issue submitted by the Petition for this
Court’s resolution is whether the CTA En Banc erred in
taking cognizance of the case and holding that DKS’s
petition for review was not prematurely filed with the CTA
First Division.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The Petition lacks merit.
 
Exception to the mandatory and juris-
dictional nature of the 120-day period

under Section 112(C) of the NIRC

 
Section 112 of the NIRC provides for the rules on
claiming refunds or tax credits of unutilized input VAT, the
pertinent portions of which read as follows:

Sec.  112.  Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax.—

 
(A)  Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales.—Any VAT-
registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-
rated

_______________

11  Rollo, p. 43.
12  Id., at pp. 47-53.

 
 

96

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

Services, Pte. Ltd.

may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter
when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit
certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid
attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the
extent that such input tax has not been applied against output
tax: x x x
 
x x x x
 
(C)  Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes
shall be Made.—In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a
refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes
within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of
submission of complete documents in support of the
application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.
In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax
credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the
application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer
affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the
decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one
hundred twenty-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted
claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)

 
Based on the plain language of the foregoing provision, a
VAT-registered taxpayer claiming for a refund or tax credit
of its excess and unutilized input VAT must file an
administrative claim within two (2) years from the close of
the taxable quarter when the sales are made. After that,
the CIR is given 120 days, from the submission of complete
documents in support of said administrative claim, within
which to grant or deny said claim. Upon receipt of CIR’s
decision, denying the claim in full or partially, or upon the
expiration of the 120-day period without action from the
CIR, the taxpayer has 30 days within which to file a
petition for review with the CTA.
As earlier stated, this Court in Aichi clarified that the
120-day period granted to the CIR is mandatory and
jurisdictional, the nonobservance of which is fatal to the
filing of a judicial claim with the CTA. The Court further
explained that the two (2)-year prescriptive period under
Section 112(A) of the NIRC pertains only to the filing of the
administrative claim with the BIR; while the judicial claim
may be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt
of the decision of the CIR or expiration of 120-day period of
the CIR to act on the claim. Thus:
 
 

97

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 97

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

Section 112(D) of the NIRC clearly provides that the CIR

has “120 days, from the date of the submission of the
complete documents in support of the application [for tax
refund/credit],” within which to grant or deny the claim. In
case of full or partial denial by the CIR, the taxpayer’s recourse is

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

to file an appeal before the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the
decision of the CIR. However, if after the 120-day period the
CIR fails to act on the application for tax refund/credit,
the remedy of the taxpayer is to appeal the inaction of the
CIR to CTA within 30 days.
In this case, the administrative and the judicial claims were
simultaneously filed on September 30, 2004. Obviously,
respondent did not wait for the decision of the CIR or the lapse of
the 120-day period. For this reason, we find the filing of the
judicial claim with the CTA premature.
Respondent’s assertion that the nonobservance of the 120-day
period is not fatal to the filing of a judicial claim as long as both
the administrative and the judicial claims are filed within the
two-year prescriptive period has no legal basis.
There is nothing in Section 112 of the NIRC to support
respondent’s view. Subsection (A) of the said provision states that
“any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated may, within two years after the close of the
taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance
of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or
paid attributable to such sales.” The phrase “within two (2) years
x  x  x apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund”
refers to applications for refund/credit filed with the CIR and not
to appeals made to the CTA. This is apparent in the first
paragraph of subsection (D) of the same provision, which states
that the CIR has “120 days from the submission of complete
documents in support of the application filed in accordance with
Subsections (A) and (B)” within which to decide on the claim.
In fact, applying the two-year period to judicial claims would
render nugatory Section 112(D) of the NIRC, which already
provides for a specific period within which a taxpayer should
appeal the decision or inaction of the CIR. The second paragraph
of Section 112(D) of the NIRC envisions two scenarios: (1) when a
decision is issued by the CIR before the lapse of the 120-day
period; and (2) when no decision is made after the 120-day period.
In both instances, the tax-

 
 
98

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

payer has 30 days within which to file an appeal with the CTA.
As we see it then, the 120-day period is crucial in filing an
appeal with the CTA.
 
x x x x
 
In fine, the premature filing of respondent’s claim for
refund/credit of input VAT before the CTA warrants a dismissal
inasmuch as no jurisdiction was acquired by the CTA.13
(Emphasis supplied)

 
Subsequently, in San Roque, while the Court reiterated
the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day
periods, it recognized as an exception BIR Ruling No. DA-
489-03, issued prior to the promulgation of Aichi, where the
BIR expressly allowed the filing of judicial claims with the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

CTA even before the lapse of the 120-day period. The Court
held that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 furnishes a valid basis
to hold the CIR in estoppel because the CIR had misled
taxpayers into filing judicial claims before the CTA even
before the lapse of the 120-day period:

There is no dispute that the 120-day period is mandatory and

jurisdictional, and that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over
a judicial claim that is filed before the expiration of the 120-day
period. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first
exception is if the Commissioner, through a specific ruling,
misleads a particular taxpayer to prematurely file a judicial claim
with the CTA. Such specific ruling is applicable only to such
particular taxpayer. The second exception is where the
Commissioner, through a general interpretative rule issued under
Section 4 of the Tax Code, misleads all taxpayers into filing
prematurely judicial claims with the CTA. In these cases, the
Commissioner cannot be allowed to later on question the CTA’s
assumption of jurisdiction over such claim since equitable
estoppel has set in as expressly authorized under Section 246 of
the Tax Code.
 
x x x x

_______________

13   Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of

Asia, Inc., supra note 4 at pp. 731-732; pp. 443-444.

 
 
99

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 99

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule

because it was a response to a query made, not by a particular
taxpayer, but by a government agency tasked with processing tax
refunds and credits, that is, the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency
Tax Credit and Drawback Center of the Department of
Finance. This government agency is also the addressee, or the
entity responded to, in BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Thus, while
this government agency mentions in its query to the
Commissioner the administrative claim of Lazi Bay Resources
Development, Inc., the agency was in fact asking the
Commissioner what to do in cases like the tax claim of Lazi Bay
Resources Development, Inc., where the taxpayer did not wait for
the lapse of the 120-day period.
Clearly, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general
interpretative rule. Thus, all taxpayers can rely on BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on 10
December 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on
6 October 2010, where this Court held that the 120+30 day
periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.14 (Emphasis
supplied)

 
Following San Roque, the Court, in a catena of cases,15
has consistently adopted the rule that the 120-day waiting
period does not apply
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

_______________

14  Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation,

supra note 10 at pp. 373-376; pp. 401-404.
15   See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toledo Power Company,
G.R. Nos. 195175 & 199645, August 10, 2015, 765 SCRA 511;
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Air Liquide Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No. 210646, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 385; Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 173241, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 279;
Cargill Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
203774, March 11, 2015, 753 SCRA 124; Panay Power Corporation
(formerly Avon River Power Holdings Corporation) v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 203351, January 21, 2015, 746 SCRA 588;
Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015, 745 SCRA 663; Mindanao II
Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
204745, December 8, 2014, 744 SCRA 143; CBK Power Company Limited
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 198928, December 3, 2014,
743 SCRA 693; Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 198076, November 19, 2014, 741 SCRA 196;

 
 
100

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

to claims for refund that were prematurely filed during the

period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on
December 10, 2003, until October 6, 2010, when the Aichi
was promulgated; but before and after said period, the
observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and
jurisdictional.16
In this case, records show that DKS filed its
administrative and judicial claim for refund on June 18,
2009 and June 30, 2009, respectively, or after the issuance
of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, but before the date when
Aichi was promulgated. Thus, even though DKS filed its
judicial claim without waiting for the expiration of the 120-
day mandatory period, the CTA may still take cognizance
of the case because the claim was filed within the excepted
period stated in San Roque. Verily, the CTA En Banc did
not err in reversing the dismissal of DKS’s judicial claim
and remanding the case to the CTA First Division for the
resolution of the case on the merits.

_______________

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian

Contractor Mindanao, Inc., G.R. No. 190021, October 22, 2014, 739 SCRA
147; CBK Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
744 Phil. 559; 714 SCRA 46 (2014); San Roque Power Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 737 Phil. 387; 727 SCRA 565 (2014);
Miramar Fish Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 185432, June 4, 2014, 724 SCRA 611; Silicon Philippines, Inc. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 727 Phil. 487; 717 SCRA 30 (2014);
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team Sual Corporation (formerly
Mirant Sual Corporation), 726 Phil. 266; 715 SCRA 478 (2014);

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toledo Power, Inc., 725 Phil. 66; 714
SCRA 276 (2014); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mindanao II
Geothermal Partnership, 724 Phil. 534; 713 SCRA 645 (2014); Team
Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant Pagbilao Corp.) v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 724 Phil. 127; 713 SCRA 104 (2014); Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Visayas Geothermal Power Company, Inc., 720 Phil.
710; 709 SCRA 89 (2013); Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 706 Phil. 442; 693 SCRA 456 (2013).
16  Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
736 Phil. 591, 600; 743 SCRA 130, 140-141 (2014).

 
 
101

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 101

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

Application and validity of

BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03

 
The CIR now claims that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is
invalid because it was merely issued by a Deputy
Commissioner and not by the CIR, who is exclusively
authorized by law to interpret the provisions of the NIRC.
The Court is not persuaded. The Court En Banc’s
Resolution in San Roque dated October 8, 201317 is
instructive:

In asking this Court to disallow Taganito’s claim for tax refund

or credit, the CIR repudiates the validity of the issuance of its
own BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. “Taganito cannot rely on the
pronouncements in BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, being a mere
issuance of a Deputy Commissioner.”
Although Section 4 of the 1997 Tax Code provides that the
“power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws
shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance,”
Section 7 of the same Code does not prohibit the delegation of
such power. Thus, “[t]he Commissioner may delegate the
powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of
this Code to any or such subordinate officials with the
rank equivalent to a division chief or higher, subject to such
limitations and restrictions as may be imposed under rules and
regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon
recommendation of the Commissioner.”18

 
Finally, the CIR contends that even assuming that BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 should be considered as an exception
to the 120-day period; it was already repealed and
superseded on November 1, 2005 by Revenue Regulations
No. 16-2005 (RR 16-2005), which echoed the mandatory
and jurisdictional nature of the 120-day waiting period
under Section 112 of the NIRC. Thus, DKS cannot rely on
BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 because

_______________

17  Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corp., 719

Phil. 137; 707 SCRA 66 (2013).
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

18  Id., at pp. 163-164; pp. 85-86.

 
 
102

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

its claim was filed in June 2009 or almost four (4) years
since RR 16-2005 took effect.
In other words, the CIR posits that compliance with the
120-day period should only be considered permissible from
December 10, 2003, when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was
issued, until October 31, 2005, prior to the effectivity of RR
16-2005.
The Court disagrees.
Again, it has already been settled in San Roque that
BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule
which all taxpayers may rely upon from the time of its
issuance on December 10, 2003 until its effective reversal
by the Court in Aichi. While RR 16-2005 may have re-
established the necessity of the 120-day period, taxpayers
cannot be faulted for still relying on BIR Ruling DA-489-03
even after the issuance of RR 16-2005 because the issue on
the mandatory compliance of the 120-day period was only
brought before the Court and resolved with finality in
Aichi.
All told, the Court maintains that the 120-day period is
permissible from December 10, 2003, when BIR Ruling No.
DA-489-03 was issued, until October 6, 2010, when Aichi
was promulgated; but before and after said period, the
observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and
jurisdictional.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
petition for review is hereby DENIED. The Amended
Decision dated July 29, 2013 and the Resolution dated
January 7, 2014 of the CTA En Banc in C.T.A. E.B. No. 815
are hereby AFFIRMED. Let this case be REMANDED to
the CTA First Division for the proper determination of the
refundable amount due to respondent, if any.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, amended decision and resolution

affirmed.

 
 
103

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 103

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Deutsche Knowledge
Services, Pte. Ltd.

Note.—Tax refunds or credits — just like tax

exemptions — are strictly construed against taxpayers, the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/12
10/30/21, 7:01 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

latter have the burden to prove strict compliance with the

conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit. (Applied
Food Ingredients Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 709 SCRA 164 [2013])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cd0e18f0d88392e49000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/12